Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1887-05-04

MIR. LEWIS LITTLE SURPRISE.
His Breach.Of.Privileee Motion Was
Made Without Consulting Amy body.
Special Cable Dispatch to The EVENING STAR
LONDON, May 4.-without a word OF warning,
the question OF parliamentary privilege versus
ParnelliSm and crime was sprung upon the house
OF commons last night. The members OF the gov
eminent were extremely angry with Sir Charles
Lewis who, without Informing them, and despite
the protests OF the chief conservative whip.
moved, in an elaborate speech that the Times
article Of Monday declaring Dillon's explanation
70 be a tissue OF gross and palpable falsehood,
was breach OF privilege. Lewis, by the way, L
the man who once called the attention OF the
house TO the statement in the London World rhai
he Qewtsl
WORE WHITE wAISTCoAT.
Smash, for the government, moved the adjourn
ment OF the debate, which naturally called down
upon him from the mouth OF Mr.. Healy vehement
denunaa1on % @ nor expecang the Parnellites TO reply
when they wished to speak Dillon after some
hesitation, for the natural reason that he did not
case against him, declared the two columns in the
Times to be base, atrocious calumnies, and his
Willingness TO meet the printer OF the Times IA,
the barof the house and prove him to be
FOUL AND CowARDLy LIAR
The question whether the Times article consti-
tutes breach OF privilege remains to be decided
In ali probability the Times will now have to make
good its charges against Dillon IL Will be odd II
In some way or other the question OF the Parnell
letter is not dragged In also. The affair comes up
again this afternoon.
By Associated Press.
London Press Comment.
IT WAS THE GOVERNMENT WHICH sHRANK FROM IN
INVESTIGATION.
LONDON, May 4-The Daily Ne,cs says: 1.-THE
country will not fail to note that 1t was the gov
ernment who shrank from an inquiry last night.
II, as the debate would seem to indicate, they re-
fuse in spite OF all precedents TO regard the
question or privilege it viii only be bee ause
they do not themselves believe the charges ag
the Parnetes capable OF such proof as VIII SATISFY
q committee OF English gentlemen"
SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED
The Standard says: "Whether Mr. Lewis was
well or tl-adviSed in raising the question, we are
strongly OF the opinion that it should now be
thoroughly Investigated. Nothing could hapIsen
In committee on the crimes bill that would be b all
so pertinent TO the fundamental issue distinct
clearing up OF the relations OF the Parneltes i.p
the party OF assassination and outrage. But the
ordeal which Messrs Sexton and Dillon have d, =
clared they are anxious 70 face will be farcca 4
foImality, unless the entire case against the Par
nelliteS be gone into. II will be the duty OF the
government TO see that the inquiry is an exhaust
I've one"
rRISHMEN's GOOD NAME OF NO ACCOUNT
The Post says it hopes that Mr.. Lewis motion
Will be rejected, as parl1ament'S time is too
precious to waste in such discussion. The DAILY
Telegraph says: We can readily believe that the
proposal Is not altOgether q welcome one 10 the
government. The cabinet are discussing the mat
ter, and may propose TO refer IT to commission
OF judges, which would be more enectual plan
than appointing parliamentary committee OF in
Quiry and would save time besides. A satisfactory
point is that the ParnelllteS for the trSt time
have invited searching investigation. By their
present course, however, the ParnelltteS expose
themselves to the charge OF Sinking an inquiry
before q British jury. Yet, whatever the outcome,
1t Is to be hoped that the charges viii be fairly
faced and proved to be unfounded.
The Daily Chronicle says: "There can be no
doubt OF the laundering tndiscretiOn OF Lewis 1t
Is only fair to admit that no obligation rests on
Mr. Parnell or Mr.. Dillon or anybody TO bring an
action against man VINO has l1beled him. The
matter Is one for each members private Judgment
II he thinks he is not called upon to vindicaTe him
self In court OF law he Is entitled TO demand that
the author or publisher OF the libel be heard at
the bar OF the house"
PROPOSED LIBERAL BANQUET TO pARNEII.
A member OF the National Liberal Club proposes
that the liberals OF Great Britain give Mr. ParnelI
a banquet as q mark OF their sympathy with
The cabinet win meet again this morning to
consider the Dillon affair.
TIE 'TIMEs" DOESN'T THINK THAT IT ouaHT no BE
MADE QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
The Times in an editorial referring to Mr..
Lewis motion that the house OF commons take
notice OF the Times charges agatSt Mr.. Dillon
called upon to protest. We have no objection 10
the issue being raised either in or out OF parlia-
ment. Still we cannot help regretting that urgent
bates upon what we published in good faith and
with evidence cOnflrmatory OF everything we adj.
vanced. While we shrink from no form OF in
Quiry, we do not think the house would be well
advised In dealing with the question as one OF
privilege. While not wishing to discuss the
merits OF the controversy at the present moment,
we would say that no journal In the united king,
dom, least OF all the organs OF the Parnellites,
would be safe for week IL 1t were held inadniss-
able to contradict any statement in the house
even II the amplest proof be furnished at the time
in support OF the contradiction. In electing TO
challenge this decision the Parnellites have
Ch(Hl0n q CuY1OuSly narrow Qr0und p
aware that the statements sssailed as q breach OF
privilege must be dealt with separately from
other matters that hitherto have been allowed to
remain untouched"